#public access... netflix...

[pipiandraws]

spent like a dumb amount of time yesterday trying to make a tiktok about how maybe instead of trying to remove all not kid friendly content off of youtube... we just remove the kids from youtube. but its hard to justify my reasoning when i prefaced it w talking about the gorey mlp videos lol. its just too easy for reactionaries to go.. erm acktually they shouldnt have made gorey mlp videos.. but idk maybe kids shouldnt have been there to begin w. so then it wouldnt be a problem to make the weird shit that inevitably ends up on youtube. its basically impossible to try to moderate something as giant as youtube so its just the better and easier solution for everybody involved. esp considering how too much screentime is impacting kids negatively (attention spans.. low reading scores and just bad behavior) so. is that so crazy to suggest

[ladystardustinblackjeans]

I feel like in 10 to 20 years there is going to be a "genre" of cult classics that consists of abandoned first seasons of netflix shows with great world building, amazing relatively unknown young actors and hints of or actual queer representation. And I'm gonna be in the comments of the youtube essay about it, remembering them all with the same feeling i have about firefly.

[blaec-ynk]

i know some people are absolutely incensed that Arcane dropped the ball on the classism and discrimination and poverty and all those plotlines they had introduced but the truth of the matter is that Arcane always framed any type of Zaunite insurrection/revolution against Piltover in bad lighting and claimed that any fight/war for the freedom and wellbeing of future generations is ultimately evil because it gets people living right now killed

Vander is the most sympathetic Undercity leader/hot shot only because he is supporting Piltover's superiority and oppression of the Undercity. he has a deal with the cops to ensure that he will keep his people obedient and subservient to Piltover and the cops. he aids the status quo and thus Piltover's exploitation of Zaun; he never encourages pushing for change in any manner, violent or non-violent, instead always pressuring those around him (esp Vi) to just take Piltover's scraps and mistreatment because you wouldnt want to lose your loved ones, would you? (which is just like, a threat. an actual threat that figures of authority like cops make to their victims to keep them inline) Completely ignoring the fact that people in Zaun HAVE, ARE, and WILL BE losing loved ones to police brutality, disease, toxic/radioactive exposure, famine, poverty, gang violence, etc. BECAUSE OF PILTOVER.

Arcane is/(started out as) a great show but it was always most sympathetic towards Piltover and the status quo. it never pushed for Zaun's independence/freedom in any meaningful way--and whenever it did deal with Zaun potentially becoming its own nation? it didn't show the power of revolutions, of class actions, of uniting and protesting and fighting back--it just said that if you sit your ass down tight and let the oppressive government shit on you enough, you might eventually be granted some rights--unless you fuck it up with a rocket, of course. but that's not how real life has ever worked

not only that but any attempt at fighting back is literally shown as being plain violence for violence's sake. we dont see or hear anything about how silco or vander planned on rebuilding the Undercity/Zaun, how they wanted to expand infrastructure, how they would support the people and keep them safe--Arcane doesnt paint revolutions as the complex operations they are, they just show us the violence of them and nothing else. like really, all Silco wants to do is use Shimmer to scare topside--but that's not how revolutions or fighting against opressors works! because Piltover will be scared, yes, but that just means they will double down harder on all the violence and restrictions. that's obvious. not only that, but lets say Piltover gets scared and retracts from Zaun completely--Zaun seems to be heavily dependent on trade from Piltover to get what they need to survive. Silco doesnt mention anything about how to fix that. and that to me just plays on harmful stereotypes about any and all kinds of social movements. all of the real work is reduced to violence.

i dont have a closing statement im just so pissed at how theyre handling the classism in s1 now that im rewatching it

[midpenmedia]

It’s time for Trivia Tuesday!

Q: In the movie Dumplin, staring Jennifer Aniston, what country singer is referenced a lot in the movie?

A. Allison Krauss

B. Blake Shelton

C. Carrie Underwood

D. Dolly Parton

Hope this gif from the movie doesn’t give it away :D

[txttletale]

Saw a tweet that said something around:

"cannot emphasize enough how horrid chatgpt is, y'all. it's depleting our global power & water supply, stopping us from thinking or writing critically, plagiarizing human artists. today's students are worried they won't have jobs because of AI tools. this isn't a world we deserve"

I've seen some of your AI posts and they seem nuanced, but how would you respond do this? Cause it seems fairly-on point and like the crux of most worries. Sorry if this is a troublesome ask, just trying to learn so any input would be appreciated.

i would simply respond that almost none of that is true.

'depleting the global power and water supply'

something i've seen making the roudns on tumblr is that chatgpt queries use 3 watt-hours per query. wow, that sounds like a lot, especially with all the articles emphasizing that this is ten times as much as google search. let's check some other very common power uses:

running a microwave for ten minutes is 133 watt-hours

gaming on your ps5 for an hour is 200 watt-hours

watching an hour of netflix is 800 watt-hours

and those are just domestic consumer electricty uses!

a single streetlight's typical operation 1.2 kilowatt-hours a day (or 1200 watt-hours)

a digital billboard being on for an hour is 4.7 kilowatt-hours (or 4700 watt-hours)

i think i've proved my point, so let's move on to the bigger picture: there are estimates that AI is going to cause datacenters to double or even triple in power consumption in the next year or two! damn that sounds scary. hey, how significant as a percentage of global power consumption are datecenters?

1-1.5%.

ah. well. nevertheless!

what about that water? yeah, datacenters use a lot of water for cooling. 1.7 billion gallons (microsoft's usage figure for 2021) is a lot of water! of course, when you look at those huge and scary numbers, there's some important context missing. it's not like that water is shipped to venus: some of it is evaporated and the rest is generally recycled in cooling towers. also, not all of the water used is potable--some datacenters cool themselves with filtered wastewater.

most importantly, this number is for all data centers. there's no good way to separate the 'AI' out for that, except to make educated guesses based on power consumption and percentage changes. that water figure isn't all attributable to AI, plenty of it is necessary to simply run regular web servers.

but sure, just taking that number in isolation, i think we can all broadly agree that it's bad that, for example, people are being asked to reduce their household water usage while google waltzes in and takes billions of gallons from those same public reservoirs.

but again, let's put this in perspective: in 2017, coca cola used 289 billion liters of water--that's 7 billion gallons! bayer (formerly monsanto) in 2018 used 124 million cubic meters--that's 32 billion gallons!

so, like. yeah, AI uses electricity, and water, to do a bunch of stuff that is basically silly and frivolous, and that is broadly speaking, as someone who likes living on a planet that is less than 30% on fire, bad. but if you look at the overall numbers involved it is a miniscule drop in the ocean! it is a functional irrelevance! it is not in any way 'depleting' anything!

'stopping us from thinking or writing critically'

this is the same old reactionary canard we hear over and over again in different forms. when was this mythic golden age when everyone was thinking and writing critically? surely we have all heard these same complaints about tiktok, about phones, about the internet itself? if we had been around a few hundred years earlier, we could have heard that "The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth."

it is a reactionary narrative of societal degeneration with no basis in anything. yes, it is very funny that laywers have lost the bar for trusting chatgpt to cite cases for them. but if you think that chatgpt somehow prevented them from thinking critically about its output, you're accusing the tail of wagging the dog.

nobody who says shit like "oh wow chatgpt can write every novel and movie now. yiou can just ask chatgpt to give you opinions and ideas and then use them its so great" was, like, sitting in the symposium debating the nature of the sublime before chatgpt released. there is no 'decay', there is no 'decline'. you should be suspicious of those narratives wherever you see them, especially if you are inclined to agree!

plagiarizing human artists

nah. i've been over this ad infinitum--nothing 'AI art' does could be considered plagiarism without a definition so preposterously expansive that it would curtail huge swathes of human creative expression.

AI art models do not contain or reproduce any images. the result of them being trained on images is a very very complex statistical model that contains a lot of large-scale statistical data about all those images put together (and no data about any of those individual images).

to draw a very tortured comparison, imagine you had a great idea for how to make the next Great American Painting. you loaded up a big file of every norman rockwell painting, and you made a gigantic excel spreadsheet. in this spreadsheet you noticed how regularly elements recurred: in each cell you would have something like "naturalistic lighting" or "sexually unawakened farmers" and the % of times it appears in his paintings. from this, you then drew links between these cells--what % of paintings containing sexually unawakened farmers also contained naturalistic lighting? what % also contained a white guy?

then, if you told someone else with moderately competent skill at painting to use your excel spreadsheet to generate a Great American Painting, you would likely end up with something that is recognizably similar to a Norman Rockwell painting: but any charge of 'plagiarism' would be absolutely fucking absurd!

this is a gross oversimplification, of course, but it is much closer to how AI art works than the 'collage machine' description most people who are all het up about plagiarism talk about--and if it were a collage machine, it would still not be plagiarising because collages aren't plagiarism.

(for a better and smarter explanation of the process from soneone who actually understands it check out this great twitter thread by @reachartwork)

today's students are worried they won't have jobs because of AI tools

i mean, this is true! AI tools are definitely going to destroy livelihoods. they will increase productivty for skilled writers and artists who learn to use them, which will immiserate those jobs--they will outright replace a lot of artists and writers for whom quality is not actually important to the work they do (this has already essentially happened to the SEO slop website industry and is in the process of happening to stock images).

jobs in, for example, product support are being cut for chatgpt. and that sucks for everyone involved. but this isn't some unique evil of chatgpt or machine learning, this is just the effect that technological innovation has on industries under capitalism!

there are plenty of innovations that wiped out other job sectors overnight. the camera was disastrous for portrait artists. the spinning jenny was famously disastrous for the hand-textile workers from which the luddites drew their ranks. retail work was hit hard by self-checkout machines. this is the shape of every single innovation that can increase productivity, as marx explains in wage labour and capital:

“The greater division of labour enables one labourer to accomplish the work of five, 10, or 20 labourers; it therefore increases competition among the labourers fivefold, tenfold, or twentyfold. The labourers compete not only by selling themselves one cheaper than the other, but also by one doing the work of five, 10, or 20; and they are forced to compete in this manner by the division of labour, which is introduced and steadily improved by capital. Furthermore, to the same degree in which the division of labour increases, is the labour simplified. The special skill of the labourer becomes worthless. He becomes transformed into a simple monotonous force of production, with neither physical nor mental elasticity. His work becomes accessible to all; therefore competitors press upon him from all sides. Moreover, it must be remembered that the more simple, the more easily learned the work is, so much the less is its cost to production, the expense of its acquisition, and so much the lower must the wages sink – for, like the price of any other commodity, they are determined by the cost of production. Therefore, in the same manner in which labour becomes more unsatisfactory, more repulsive, do competition increase and wages decrease”

this is the process by which every technological advancement is used to increase the domination of the owning class over the working class. not due to some inherent flaw or malice of the technology itself, but due to the material realtions of production.

so again the overarching point is that none of this is uniquely symptomatic of AI art or whatever ever most recent technological innovation. it is symptomatic of capitalism. we remember the luddites primarily for failing and not accomplishing anything of meaning.

if you think it's bad that this new technology is being used with no consideration for the planet, for social good, for the flourishing of human beings, then i agree with you! but then your problem shouldn't be with the technology--it should be with the economic system under which its use is controlled and dictated by the bourgeoisie.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The US Copyright Office frees the McFlurry

I'll be in TUCSON, AZ from November 8-10: I'm the GUEST OF HONOR at the TUSCON SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION.

I have spent a quarter century obsessed with the weirdest corner of the weirdest section of the worst internet law on the US statute books: Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the 1998 law that makes it a felony to help someone change how their own computer works so it serves them, rather than a distant corporation.

Under DMCA 1201, giving someone a tool to "bypass an access control for a copyrighted work" is a felony punishable by a 5-year prison sentence and a $500k fine – for a first offense. This law can refer to access controls for traditional copyrighted works, like movies. Under DMCA 1201, if you help someone with photosensitive epilepsy add a plug-in to the Netflix player in their browser that blocks strobing pictures that can trigger seizures, you're a felon:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2017Jul/0005.html

But software is a copyrighted work, and everything from printer cartridges to car-engine parts have software in them. If the manufacturer puts an "access control" on that software, they can send their customers (and competitors) to prison for passing around tools to help them fix their cars or use third-party ink.

Now, even though the DMCA is a copyright law (that's what the "C" in DMCA stands for, after all); and even though blocking video strobes, using third party ink, and fixing your car are not copyright violations, the DMCA can still send you to prison, for a long-ass time for doing these things, provided the manufacturer designs their product so that using it the way that suits you best involves getting around an "access control."

As you might expect, this is quite a tempting proposition for any manufacturer hoping to enshittify their products, because they know you can't legally disenshittify them. These access controls have metastasized into every kind of device imaginable.

Garage-door openers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/09/lead-me-not-into-temptation/#chamberlain

Refrigerators:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/12/digital-feudalism/#filtergate

Dishwashers:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/03/cassette-rewinder/#disher-bob

Treadmills:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/22/vapescreen/#jane-get-me-off-this-crazy-thing

Tractors:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/23/reputation-laundry/#deere-john

Cars:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/edison-not-tesla/#demon-haunted-world

Printers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/07/inky-wretches/#epson-salty

And even printer paper:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/16/unauthorized-paper/#dymo-550

DMCA 1201 is the brainchild of Bruce Lehmann, Bill Clinton's Copyright Czar, who was repeatedly warned that cancerous proliferation this was the foreseeable, inevitable outcome of his pet policy. As a sop to his critics, Lehman added a largely ornamental safety valve to his law, ordering the US Copyright Office to invite submissions every three years petitioning for "use exemptions" to the blanket ban on circumventing access-controls.

I call this "ornamental" because if the Copyright Office thinks that, say, it should be legal for you to bypass an access control to use third-party ink in your printer, or a third-party app store in your phone, all they can do under DMCA 1201 is grant you the right to use a circumvention tool. But they can't give you the right to acquire that tool.

I know that sounds confusing, but that's only because it's very, very stupid. How stupid? Well, in 2001, the US Trade Representative arm-twisted the EU into adopting its own version of this law (Article 6 of the EUCD), and in 2003, Norway added the law to its lawbooks. On the eve of that addition, I traveled to Oslo to debate the minister involved:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/28/clintons-ghost/#felony-contempt-of-business-model

The minister praised his law, explaining that it gave blind people the right to bypass access controls on ebooks so that they could feed them to screen readers, Braille printers, and other assistive tools. OK, I said, but how do they get the software that jailbreaks their ebooks so they can make use of this exemption? Am I allowed to give them that tool?

No, the minister said, you're not allowed to do that, that would be a crime.

Is the Norwegian government allowed to give them that tool? No. How about a blind rights advocacy group? No, not them either. A university computer science department? Nope. A commercial vendor? Certainly not.

No, the minister explained, under his law, a blind person would be expected to personally reverse engineer a program like Adobe E-Reader, in hopes of discovering a defect that they could exploit by writing a program to extract the ebook text.

Oh, I said. But if a blind person did manage to do this, could they supply that tool to other blind people?

Well, no, the minister said. Each and every blind person must personally – without any help from anyone else – figure out how to reverse-engineer the ebook program, and then individually author their own alternative reader program that worked with the text of their ebooks.

That is what is meant by a use exemption without a tools exemption. It's useless. A sick joke, even.

The US Copyright Office has been valiantly holding exemptions proceedings every three years since the start of this century, and they've granted many sensible exemptions, including ones to benefit people with disabilities, or to let you jailbreak your phone, or let media professors extract video clips from DVDs, and so on. Tens of thousands of person-hours have been flushed into this pointless exercise, generating a long list of things you are now technically allowed to do, but only if you are a reverse-engineering specialist type of computer programmer who can manage the process from beginning to end in total isolation and secrecy.

But there is one kind of use exception the Copyright Office can grant that is potentially game-changing: an exemption for decoding diagnostic codes.

You see, DMCA 1201 has been a critical weapon for the corporate anti-repair movement. By scrambling error codes in cars, tractors, appliances, insulin pumps, phones and other devices, manufacturers can wage war on independent repair, depriving third-party technicians of the diagnostic information they need to figure out how to fix your stuff and keep it going.

This is bad enough in normal times, but during the acute phase of the covid pandemic, hospitals found themselves unable to maintain their ventilators because of access controls. Nearly all ventilators come from a single med-tech monopolist, Medtronic, which charges hospitals hundreds of dollars to dispatch their own repair technicians to fix its products. But when covid ended nearly all travel, Medtronic could no longer provide on-site calls. Thankfully, an anonymous hacker started building homemade (illegal) circumvention devices to let hospital technicians fix the ventilators themselves, improvising housings for them from old clock radios, guitar pedals and whatever else was to hand, then mailing them anonymously to hospitals:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/10/flintstone-delano-roosevelt/#medtronic-again

Once a manufacturer monopolizes repair in this way, they can force you to use their official service depots, charging you as much as they'd like; requiring you to use their official, expensive replacement parts; and dictating when your gadget is "too broken to fix," forcing you to buy a new one. That's bad enough when we're talking about refusing to fix a phone so you buy a new one – but imagine having a spinal injury and relying on a $100,000 exoskeleton to get from place to place and prevent muscle wasting, clots, and other immobility-related conditions, only to have the manufacturer decide that the gadget is too old to fix and refusing to give you the technical assistance to replace a watch battery so that you can get around again:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24255074/former-jockey-michael-straight-exoskeleton-repair-battery

When the US Copyright Office grants a use exemption for extracting diagnostic codes from a busted device, they empower repair advocates to put that gadget up on a workbench and torture it into giving up those codes. The codes can then be integrated into an unofficial diagnostic tool, one that can make sense of the scrambled, obfuscated error codes that a device sends when it breaks – without having to unscramble them. In other words, only the company that makes the diagnostic tool has to bypass an access control, but the people who use that tool later do not violate DMCA 1201.

This is all relevant this month because the US Copyright Office just released the latest batch of 1201 exemptions, and among them is the right to circumvent access controls "allowing for repair of retail-level food preparation equipment":

https://publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-ifixit-free-the-mcflurry-win-copyright-office-dmca-exemption-for-ice-cream-machines/

While this covers all kinds of food prep gear, the exemption request – filed by Public Knowledge and Ifixit – was inspired by the bizarre war over the tragically fragile McFlurry machine. These machines – which extrude soft-serve frozen desserts – are notoriously failure-prone, with 5-16% of them broken at any given time. Taylor, the giant kitchen tech company that makes the machines, charges franchisees a fortune to repair them, producing a steady stream of profits for the company.

This sleazy business prompted some ice-cream hackers to found a startup called Kytch, a high-powered automation and diagnostic tool that was hugely popular with McDonald's franchisees (the gadget was partially designed by the legendary hardware hacker Andrew "bunnie" Huang!).

In response, Taylor played dirty, making a less-capable clone of the Kytch, trying to buy Kytch out, and teaming up with McDonald's corporate to bombard franchisees with legal scare-stories about the dangers of using a Kytch to keep their soft-serve flowing, thanks to DMCA 1201:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/20/euthanize-rentier-enablers/#cold-war

Kytch isn't the only beneficiary of the new exemption: all kinds of industrial kitchen equipment is covered. In upholding the Right to Repair, the Copyright Office overruled objections of some of its closest historical allies, the Entertainment Software Association, Motion Picture Association, and Recording Industry Association of America, who all sided with Taylor and McDonald's and opposed the exemption:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/us-copyright-office-frees-the-mcflurry-allowing-repair-of-ice-cream-machines/

This is literally the only useful kind of DMCA 1201 exemption the Copyright Office can grant, and the fact that they granted it (along with a similar exemption for medical devices) is a welcome bright spot. But make no mistake, the fact that we finally found a narrow way in which DMCA 1201 can be made slightly less stupid does not redeem this outrageous law. It should still be repealed and condemned to the scrapheap of history.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/28/mcbroken/#my-milkshake-brings-all-the-lawyers-to-the-yard

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[yvesismywife]

IWH2BMX ᝰ.ᐟ DANIELA AVANZINI

synopsis

y/n l/n, the 4th member of the rnb girl group flo, is notorious for her very noticeable lack of pr training. once she goes through a very public breakup, her pr team finally decided it was time to control her online presence. daniela avanzini, the main dancer of the girl group katseye, found her reputation getting caught in the cross fire of her band mate’s blunt personality. so when both groups are caught at the same party, management gets a not so great idea.

status loading... in progress

tags smau, crack, fluff, (semi) love-hate relationship, coarse language, suggestive themes, celebrity!au, sexual jokes, poor humour, (semi) toxic relationships, angst…maybe.

featuring flo, katseye, lizeth selene, possibly others

pairing daniela avanzini x black female reader.

now playing... access all areas

notes did i make this in hopes of a flo x katseye collab?? well, yes. also imagine that there’s a 4th member in the pictures of flo lol. this was made for fun and entertainment and is not an actual portrayal of the people mentioned. i’m not sure if i want flo to be based in california or keep them in the uk, so for right now they are doing press in america 😭. there is no set face claim for yn. also this is my first time making a smau, so if it’s bad, tell me 🙏

profiles the children of the destiny’s | new crazy

put a finger down

cool and collected

not to point fingers

hater syndrome

that’s bae right thurr

i am a strong woman

where baddies unite

mommy manager

not my type

kitty group

you’re buying

mindless behaviour

gay awakening

hey avanzini

might be panicking

friends

the terrell show

officially (not)dating

come inside

monster high

besties

fighting through sza

out now on netflix

the girls are fighting

fake girlfriend

santa monica

vacation with selene

a rekindling

nailea devora

oh bloody hell

rain check

…more in progress

taglist ! (open) @1luvkarina @yjiminswallet @sunshinez4 @winnmin @lara4eclipze @wtfisthisnoclueman @flowerluzx @meizinisnumberone @leotapes @meganskiendielsbtc @reey0w @haerinkisser @cassiespoiler @peanutbutterlover05 @p1hbrook @kristalag @yeetaberry127 @blushmimi @xochitlisbest @urmom2314 @bowforgodjihyo @vvyuqi @linnnsworld @vampireris @loverofannabeth @mei2yok @yunalvrrr @ratzeye @hotluvlet @vivilvr @reiiaokii @skz-xii @modernvenuss @aloneinacity @liancacoltrane1 @tamberverse @idontwannabeable @idkbruhdoyou

COMMENT TO BE ADDED

[muppet-facts]

Muppet Fact #1456

Sesame Street has officially announced that the show will now air on Netflix and PBS simultaneously.

After the streaming deal with Warner Bros. Discovery was not renewed, there were some questions regarding the fate of the beloved children's educational program. However, after today's announcement we now know season 56 of Sesame Street will now have another home on Netflix.

Sherrie Westin, the CEO of Sesame Workshop said in a press release:

This unique public-private partnership ensures children in communities across the U.S. continue to have free access on PBS KIDS to the Sesame Street they love. This combined support advances our mission and ensures we can help all children—everywhere—grow smarter, stronger, and kinder.

Not only will new episodes air on PBS, but there will also be new games on pbskids.org, an expansion of parent and educator resources, and more.

Sources:

PBS Publicity. "PBS KIDS Announces New SESAME STREET Deal." PBS, May 19, 2025. https://www.pbs.org/about/about-pbs/blogs/news/pbs-kids-announces-new-sesame-street-deal/.

Associated Press. "'Sesame Street' moves in with Netflix, but will stay on PBS." Associated Press, May 19, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/sesame-street-netflix-move-pbs-b74920f423e9790973b59735689696c2

Respers France, Lisa. "‘Sesame Street’ taking up residence on Netflix." CNN, May 19, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/entertainment/sesame-street-netflix.

[arkhammaid]

— ˚₊‧⁺˖ THE LIGHTNING ON TRACK | THE STRATEGY CALL

fandom. formula one & mcu

about. in which the stark racing f1 team talks about the 2025 strategy and beyond

content warnings. written in 3rd person

word count. 1.4k words

notes. with this chapter i wanted to involve a bit of politics and 'realistically' explain why stark racing won't immediately win a wdc (because with the whole set up, it would be possible). f1 are politics and no matter how many drivers say cash is king, connections have sometimes more worth

"welcome, everyone. thank you for tuning in", greets tony with a big smile on his face, spreading his arms as if going in for a hug.

"as you can see, i'm not currently with any departement, i'm doing the finishing touches in my own lab back in new york... since i don't want to drag anyone here to the US for meetings, we will proceed like this until january next year."

"now, i know it will be annoying with dragging your equipement with you and it's also unsafe, since you know... data secrets bla bla- so, in the next few days, each stark racing employee will receive the so called 'tactical intelligence glasses', which you can see me wearing. it's voice activated and can only be used by the one who sets it up, which will be you!" while speaking, tony fiddles with a pencil in his hand and starts walking around in his lab, showcasting it to every viewer.

"to cut things short, you'll receive a tutorial on how to use these glasses and set them up once you receive them. if you ever lose them, don't worry, we can track them. destroying them is pretty hard, but please don't try to make it a challange... our plan is to use them not only during meetings but also during the race, to keep our data from the cameras. with netflix, paparazzi and other cameras from the news, it's easy to steal data that shouldn't be accessible."

"alright then", he ends his ramblings with a clap, "we're going over the interesting part now. let's talk strategy..."

y/n let's her father's voice wash over her, her own glasses perched on her nose and feeding her constant information. in front of her are two holograms, projected by the hologram table in the meeting room she's currently in. the standing figure of her father and the presentation he's currently rattling off, all of it in a glowing blue.

next to her sits kevin, her future teammate, exhausted from the long 24 season but still paying attention. the rest of the room is filled with their team, the race engineers and trainers- each of them having their own glasses on.

to outsiders it looks like they're clowns, but it's a common sight in stark industries. decades ahead of the general public, stark stands for the future. of course they're trying to push it to the outer world, selling hologrammic equipement to both the industry but also private customers, but it's a slow progress.

the marketing team of SI hopes with their public use of the glasses and other devices they'll attract more customers, leaving the age of apple and samsung behind and instead welcoming the age of holograms. powered by starkanium, the production of phones, tablets, computers- anything really, is much cheaper and enviroment friendly than what's currently dominating the market.

shaking her head, y/n focuses on the presentation again. of course she knows it by heart already, she helped writing it, brooding over the strategy with the team ever since the team got announced.

"... the plan is to finish between 5th-3rd on the construction championship. not higher, not lower. we don't want to place higher, because this is our testing season. we will be practically sandbagging from the beginning, not revealing our true power for 2026."

yes... the construction championship. it will bring in money, not that they would need it, but it will justify the expenses they're going to make during the season to prepare for their second one. y/n is under no illusion, if they want, they could go all out and snag at least p2, if not p1. maybe she would even get her world championship- only then for everyone to say she won because she's driving a stark machine and not because of her own skill.

it sounds arrogant, she knows. but y/n believes, no, she doesn't only believe, she knows, she is one of the best in the whole world. if she can go against her father in an iron man suit, who can be only piloted by less than ten people in the world... winning in an f1 car is nothing.

but they've already made enemies for not waiting until 2026 like audi, 'enemies', who have much more pull within the motorsport world than them, simply because they're already established. christian horner is one, followed by toto wolff, the iconic red racing team not far behind.

with they're entry, they didn't make friends on the paddock, so for their first season... they can't be too good. or else their future seasons will be ruined.

it's stupid, to think like this, to think so far ahead, to think of others, in a sport where winning is everything. but it's not. cash and connections influence everything you do, how far you succeed. they have plenty of money, but are practically poor in connections. heck, even haas is better established than them.

they won't be, not after they're done after their first season. they will show the world, what stark racing is truly made of. and y/n will prove, that a woman can win.

"-bought data packs from previous seasons, dating back a whole decade, from mercedes and aston martin. cost a pretty penny, but data is everything. not to mention, after the big leak that happend in the middle of the season, we managed to grab enough data on all teams to calculate 3523 outcomes to this season. points, standings, anything." kevin wheezes at the number, which is followed by several data sheets. he gapes at the calculations, which predict another world championship for max 2064 times. all from the data they managed to collect.

"insane, right?", y/n whispers to kevin, who turns his head to her. his wide eyes make her snicker.

"welcome to stark racing, mate. just you wait until JARVIS and FRIDAY start feeding in new numbers and information." a muttered 'holy shit' is the only answer she gets and y/n has to snicker again. toto wolff once said something about formula one being war planning... well, he should know that stark industries and it's most brilliant minds know everything about war. be it on the market, by income or an actual alien invasion.

"we want to achieve at least one win, be it in a proper race or sprint, three podiums per driver and at least two fastest laps. and it will be possible", her father continues, pointing at a hologram of their car. it spins lazily in a circle, showing off it's aeorodynamic curves.

"this car is faster than the rb19, goes on par with the rb20. we don't know the upgrades from red bull, but another year and we can pretty much predict their stats for 2026. newey is predictable, all his upgrades point towards the perfection of the car, he focuses on what to make better and not invent something completely new. and if he does, he takes ages to prove it's better than what they had before. newey is brilliant, but he's no stark." there it is again, the facts of their rivals, taken apart and put back together to summerize their data in a few simple words.

"so, our motto for this season is testing, collecting data and improving for the next season. we're sandbagging, we're restricting ourselves. so if we ever do bad... we all know we could do much better. the engineering team will send first comparisons between the SR-1 and SR-2 out next week, y/n has already tested both cars in the sim, so we will have some data to read off."

"so, with that, we're pretty much done. thank you everyone for listening, i know for some it's very early right now, so if you have to read over the spark notes- JARVIS has put a summary of the most important information together, you'll receive the mail right after this converence. thank you again and welcome to stark racing, everyone!" claps fill the room and y/n takes off her glasses. it's exhausting to play mindgames like this, to calculate the desired outcome, but it will all come together.

hopefully, with her as a world champion, with the bold stark name on her back.

taglist. @lilypadlover , @adorablezhui , @peqch-pie , @keyz-writes , @obsidianjewel , @aimixx , @themercyverse , @lem-hhn , @akiraquote , @kiiyoooo , @nichmeddar , @nothingfuninthislife , @minkyungseokie , @fionaschicken , @lyrasconstellation , @spideybv28 , @keii134 , @starssfall , @tpwkstiles, @fangirl-dot-com , @nichmeddar , @lady-laura-speaks , @nikfigueiredo , @hinamesgigantica , @brakingboundaries , @almostjollypizza , @yoremins , @raizelchrysanderoctavius , @celesteblack08 , @watermelon-sugars-things , @lighttsoutlewis , @radiantdanvers , @vellicora, @sterredem , @hiireadstuff , @jolixtreesunn , @mypage-myfandoms , @nelly187 @greeneyesandsunshine , @fulla02 , @welovediaaxx , @whyamireadingthis , @67-angelofthelordme-67 , @blueberry64857959 , @winchesterwife27 , @six-call , @skywalker1dream , @mellowarcadefun , @cherry-piee , @peterholland04 , @motorsportloverf1 , @renarots , @msbyjackal , @woozarts , @leclucklerc , @yl90

crossed off tags mean i can't tag you!

DO YOU WANT TO JOIN THE SERIES TAGLIST? please leave a comment on this post or send a non anonymous ask!

ARKHAM MAID 2024

[aletheia-goddess-of-truth]

Reasons why I dislike Lando Norris

1. Immaturity & Arrogance

Early in his F1 career, Lando was often seen joking around in serious contexts, which some fans took as a lack of maturity.

Example: In a 2020 Twitch stream, Lando commented on Lewis Hamilton’s dominance by saying:

"He's in a car that should win every race, really."

Many people recognised that Norris is downplaying Hamilton’s skill. After public backlash, Lando apologized for the comment.

He also made headlines for celebrating Hamilton’s penalty at Monza 2020, later admitting his comment was “stupid and careless.”

And now look at him. Even though McLaren is currently the fastest car on track, it is Oscar leading the championship, not Lando

2. Radio Complaints & Frustrated Communication

Lando is frequently critical over team radio, or as I like to call it “whiny” or disrespectful toward his engineers.

Example: During the 2021 Russian Grand Prix, while leading the race, Norris argued against pitting for wet tyres, saying:

"No!"

when his team suggested switching. He stayed out, lost the lead, and was widely criticized for ignoring strategy calls. Then he cried afterwards because he didn't win the race, even though it was his own fault.

3. Insensitive or Poorly Worded Public Comments

His past tweets and comments have at times been insensitive or unprofessional.

Example: In older tweets (pre-F1), Lando made jokes that were later deleted after fans called them out as immature or off-color.

Some fans also noted that he’s made dismissive-sounding comments about other drivers’ performance, notably Daniel Ricciardo.

4. Teammate Dynamics and Public Statements

Lando’s public statements about teammates have sometimes been read as cold or overly blunt.

On Oscar Piastri (2023):

"He's pushed me more than the last couple of years."

This was taken by some fans as a subtle dig at Daniel Ricciardo.

He also said about Piastri:

"He's a little bit the opposite of Daniel at the minute,"

suggesting differences in style and intensity, but again leading to feel Ricciardo was being unfairly compared.

Also, when Oscar won the Hungarian GP 2024, Lando ruined Oscars celebration, leading to apologising publicly a few days later. Oscar didn't do anything wrong and Lando ruined his win.

5. Mental Resilience Under Pressure

Following several high-pressure mistakes, many F1 figures have questioned Lando’s mental toughness.

Example: After crashing during qualifying in Saudi Arabia (2025), both Ralf Schumacher and Helmut Marko criticized his mindset. This added to a narrative that Norris may lack the temperament needed for championship contention.

6. Privileged Background and Relatability

Coming from a wealthy family, Lando had access to opportunities others did not. While not his fault, this makes him seem less relatable to some fans.

Some critics believe his upbringing makes his discussions on topics like pressure or mental health feel less grounded or sincere.

7. Fanbase Behavior and Online Toxicity

Some of the criticism directed at Lando is a reaction to the behavior of his more aggressive fans.

On platforms like Twitter and Reddit, fans have been known to attack rival drivers or anyone critical of Norris.

This “stanning” culture leads to resentment toward Lando himself, even if he does not endorse or encourage such behavior.

I have to say, this point is not his fault.

8. Media Favoritism

Lando receives significant screen time and branding attention, especially post-Netflix's Drive to Survive.

Critics say this comes at the expense of more successful or experienced drivers. They also say that Netfilx favours Lando and tells the stories, so he looks like the good guy, making the other drivers (for example, Verstappen) look bad.

[cleolinda]

I’ve read a few of the umpteen thousand upset comments about the paid Watcher service, and I’ve read comments angry about the upset comments. There’s one thing I want to point out, and it’s that this isn’t, or shouldn’t be, “You’re saying people don’t deserve to earn money for their work.”

The Watcher guys do deserve to earn money. I already give them money. I give them $5 a month on Patreon, not because I think they do or don’t give me $5 worth of media, but because I want to support them. I canceled Netflix for pissing me off with its price hike/ad tier, but I give Watcher Entertainment money.

They’re saying now that the Patreon will be solely about the podcasts, and they understand if people leave. I’m perfectly happy to switch the support I can afford to the streaming service. With the early adopter 30% discount, I’d actually save money. In fact, I tried to subscribe, but the site didn’t work.

Watcher wanting to profit from their shows isn’t the problem. It’s that they’re now discovering that their fanbase is young and broke in a terrible economy, judging by tens of thousands of comments on multiple platforms. I can throw them $5/month, so I do. But the Patreon only has (checks notes) 5874 paying followers, and there’s a reason for that. $60/year upfront would not be “accessible.” Patreon is literally patronage from the people who can afford it.

If the guys had said up front, “ONLY new shows and episodes will be exclusive to the service,” I think we’d be having a different conversation right now. But at first they did say, “We’re pulling all our content from YouTube,” to the point where Variety had to issue an update. Like, that’s in print and I’m pretty sure it was on video. Now they’ve backtracked to ONLY new etc.—but most people haven’t heard, and they feel crushed. And the trust is probably gone regardless.

So now four years of back catalogue will stay public. And now, you’re paying $6.99 a month for one episode, maybe two, of something a week, and now, not an exclusive back catalogue. I would pay for Watcher shows before I’d pay for anyone else, but I just don’t think the company is big enough yet for a SVOD at that price. They’re not Dropout size. They needed to build more programming and get a higher follower count first, or at the very least, charge less.

The international price/exchange rate situation is a nightmare and I don’t know what it is they’re not doing to make it… not… be like that.

I don’t know what they should have done instead of a full streaming service, but surely there were alternatives? I’ve seen comments from people suggesting they GET a Patreon. Lean on that more! Do the shows exclusive for a month and then let them roll onto YouTube! I don’t know! Anything but One More Fucking Streaming Service, which enraged me, and I was willing to move my support to it!

And I shouldn’t say this, but I will. In the “Goodbye YouTube” video the guys posted, they say that setting up the streaming service has allowed Steven to do a remake of Worth It where he and his cohosts travel the world and eat expensive food. This is the first new show they announce. Not “We have always been committed to diversity and we’re now able to bring on new creator(s) to expand our programming.” No, a redo of an old show that by definition has got to be expensive. Commenters are saying they can’t pay for the streaming service because they can’t make ends meet in this economy. The optics are terrible. I genuinely question what the thought process even was here.

I love the guys and I still watch their shows. I want to see Watcher succeed. I started watching Buzzfeed Unsolved in 2018 while recovering from surgery—as with a lot of people, their shows got me through a tough time. I’m as attached as anyone. If I can continue to afford monthly support—this is not a certainty—I’ll give it to them. I’m not a ~hater who doesn’t want Watcher to make money. But I am absolutely BAFFLED by every single decision here. I want them to figure out how to turn this around and go in a better direction, because right now, this ain’t it.

[useless-catalanfacts]

Translation:

El Español (newspaper): The victory of parents like Sonia: 107 schools switch Valencian for Spanish because of the Mazón law.

Response: Is it possible that Spain is the only country where it's considered a victory the fact that your children will be only monolingual instead of bilingual?

Surely not the only one (imperialist countries very often try to exterminate the languages of the countries they occupy, which also means not allowing their children to learn the language of the place they move to), but Spain and France are particularly aggressive against the local languages that aren't Spanish and French, respectively.

Schools in the Valencian Country and the Balearic Islands (where the local language is Catalan or Valencian, two historical names for the same language) are being pressured to remove the local language from the school and to teach only in Spanish. In fact, the Spanish nationalist and far right-wing government of the Balearic Islands has announced that Catalan-speaking children and Spanish-speaking children will be segregated in schools from now on (parents will choose which school to send them to, accompanied with the propaganda pushing them to choose Spanish schools), with the purpose of reducing every time more and more who gets to speak and learn the islands' language, imposing Spanish instead.

Everyone learns Spanish regardless because it's the government's language and it's everywhere (TV, radio, netflix, social media, etc), plus we study it in school as a first language anyway. It's impossible to grow up here and not learn Spanish naturally as you grow up. But the same is not true the other way around. If children from Spanish-speaking families, immigrant families, and those families who have believed the decades of being told "speaking Catalan makes you sound uneducated/rural/stupid/rude, only Spanish is good for your children's future and makes you normal", if their children are only exposed to Spanish at home and on media, and because Catalan speakers are already bilingual and have an inferiority complex so will always switch to Spanish when talking to a Spanish-speaker, these children will never learn the language of the place they live in, and they will be monolingual Spanish speakers. When the number of monolingual Spanish speakers grow, Catalan speakers will be even more marginalized and won't be able to access healthcare in our language (though we already don't half of the time), won't be able to go to the shops and talk in our language, won't be able to have services in our language, etc. And, thus, they will have made our language almost useless for our everyday life. We will disappear from public spaces, and people will stop passing down the language to their children. And the language will die, and with it our way of understanding the world, the words that describe our culture, or our ability to read what our ancestors wrote, our country's literature, or to understand the names of the places we live in.

The point was always to exterminate our language and culture, to create their made-up dream of a unified Spain where everyone is the same, which has never existed. As Franco used to say, "we want an absolute unit. With one language: Spanish. And one personality: the Spanish one".

Cultural diversity is a richness and beauty of the world, and every language has an equal right to exist. Don't let anyone convince you that your language and your people don't deserve to live.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

CNN 5/19/2025

‘Sesame Street’ taking up residence on Netflix

By Lisa Respers France and Liam Reilly, CNN

Updated: 12:32 PM EDT, Mon May 19, 2025

Source: CNN

We can definitely tell you how to get to “Sesame Street.”

It was announced Monday that the popular longstanding children’s program has found a new home at Netflix.

“For more than a half a century, ‘Sesame Street’ has been a beloved cornerstone of children’s media, enchanting young minds and nurturing a love of learning,” a press release states. “Now Elmo, Cookie Monster, Abby Cadabby, and all their friends are coming to Netflix later this year, with Sesame Street’s all-new, reimagined 56th season — plus 90 hours of previous episodes — available to audiences worldwide.”

The news comes after Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN’s parent company, opted not to renew its contract to stream the series on Max (returning to the name HBO Max.)

“The new season will feature fresh format changes and the return of fan-favorite segments like Elmo’s World and Cookie Monster’s Foodie Truck,” the streamer announced. “Additionally, episodes will now center on one 11-minute story, allowing for even more character-driven humor and heart.”

The series will still be available on PBS. President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order to end federal funding for PBS and NPR.

“I strongly believe that our educational programming for children is one of the most important aspects of our service to the American people, and ‘Sesame Street’ has been an integral part of that critical work for more than half a century,” Paula Kerger, the PBS president and chief executive, said in a statement.

Sherrie Rollins Westin, the president and chief executive of Sesame Workshop — the organization behind the show — emphasized that the deal combines Sesame’s research-based curriculum and Netflix’s global reach, “ensuring children in communities across the US continue to have free access on public television to the Sesame Street they love.”

Netflix, meanwhile, touted the acquisition as a major win. The company announced the deal on X with a video of Cookie Monster devouring the Netflix logo, accompanied by “N IS FOR NETFLIX!”

The new deal provides the beloved children’s TV show with a much-needed lifeline after months of turmoil following HBO’s and Max’s decision to opt out of renewing a contract with “Sesame Street.” Since the December announcement, Sesame Workshop’s coffers have been stretched thin, leading it to lay off staffers in March as it approached production of Season 56.

See Full Web Article

Go to the full CNN experience

© 2025 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Ad Choices | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

[athenaluciscaelum]

I hate to tell you, but DMC has always had "red pilled" male fans. In fact they were the first fans. DMC, like all games of the time, were made with male fans and only male fans in mind. They don't need Netflix to tell them DMC exists and it's sad you think that's the case.

You're the noob here, not them. You only think your the majority or the only ones because you live in an echo chamber.

Also I thought gatekeeping was bad? But I guess if you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any.

Grow up, people you don't like will enjoy the same things you do and there's nothing you can do to stop it

So let's contextualise this:

First, I can have an opinion and say it out loud. Those who feel the same can agree. And those who don't can disagree respectfully. So far I did not come across much red pilled content related to DMC, yeah, I have been intentionally keeping off community on Instagram and twitter (I'm rarely not on both social media because they are unproductive and I have a job) because that's where the toxic community mostly resides. On Tumblr, Pinterest, and YouTube it hasn't been the case for me. Maybe it is my algorithm but so far it's been more than a decade and no problem.

Second, ym in many places globally, gaming and video games have not much penetration. The place where I am is the capital and much hub of gaming in my country. But guess what, even within the gaming community only Tekken, Street Fighter, Resident Evil, or Mortal Kombat is majorly popular. Many people haven't played DMC or do not know of its existence. On the other hand, Netflix is well penetrated, many people haven't played Witcher or Castlevania, but knows of Witcher or Castlevania from Netflix. The same will happen to DMC, it will become mainstream, beyond just gaming. Because Netflix is much more accessible,it is just a subscription and screen. But gaming is not that accessible gaming PCs are expensive to say the least compared to Netflix. And not everybody plays video games, but everybody watches some sort of OTT or visual content.

Third, I am a noob? Well I'm 26 and have known and played DMC since I was 8, so ....and I never said I'm the majority, I just shared what has been my experience so far ...many agreed and you could disagree without sending hate like anonymous who is too scared to give an identity to your voice.

Fourth, DMC is for the public, I cannot possibly gate keep it. But I can express my sadness or fear...my whole take was Dante is a beautiful character who is known for his humanity and if the red pill tries to misinterpret him or other female characters from mysogynist lens, it will be upsetting and ugly to say the least.

Fifth, I am not stopping anyone... I'm not some multimillionaire who can just buy DMC and gatekeep it...but I can respectfully share my opinion online. And if my lil 6-7 lines post mentally hurt you so much to go out of your way, try to insult me and fail. Then, I don't know which of us needs growing us.

[seat-safety-switch]

Sometimes I've just had enough of uncertainty. Done with probing the mysteries of the universe. Tired of meticulously unearthing the hidden truth behind seemingly unrelated phenomena. Sick of putting the puzzle pieces together. That's when television comes in.

A lot of people are going to tell you that television is less hardcore now that you can watch it whenever you want, wherever you want. And it is true that back in the day, "television watchers," as they were known, had to wait for the correct time to watch their programs. Personally, I think it's a lot harder now.

Before, you'd turn on your set, and you'd have one or two channels that worked. French CBC, or the local public-access channel. At eight p.m. your choices were either watching Les Simpson, or that show where the lady waxes a clown. Now, you sit down and you are immediately blasted by nearly thirty thousand new television programs, some of which were synthesized by an array of hypercomputers to fit your as-yet-unspoken innermost whims as soon as they heard you coming in the room.

What's been lost is the ability to just watch whatever was already on. Don't get all anxious wondering if you're really optimizing your television-viewing time as well as you possibly could. You won't relax a single iota that way. That's why I'm starting a new business. For a mere thirty bucks a month, we'll put Netflix on in your house, and then lose the remote. Whatever our installer picks is what you're going to be watching, freed from that false fantasy of "choice" for all eternity. Don't think cutting the power will work, either: we'll know.

Yes, a lot of these shows will be about small engine repair. I gotta get my views up somehow. Otherwise I will be forced to go back to a job where I spend a lot of time thinking about stuff instead of reacting to pictures of scary V-twins.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en